Dataset Information

A Prognostic Nomogram for T3N0 Rectal Cancer After Total Mesorectal Excision to Help Select Patients for Adjuvant Therapy.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The recurrence rate of T3N0 rectal cancer after total mesorectal excision (TME) is relatively low, meaning that not all patients need adjuvant therapy (AT) (radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or chemoradiotherapy).

Methods

Patients diagnosed with pT3N0M0 rectal cancer after TME were analyzed using the SEER database, of which 4367 did not receive AT and 2794 received AT. Propensity score matching was used to balance the two groups in terms of confounding factors. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to screen independent prognostic factors, which were then used to establish a nomogram. The patients were then divided into three groups with X-tile software according to their risk scores. We enrolled 334 patients as external validation.

Results

The C-index of the model was 0.725 (95% confidence interval: 0.694-0.756). We divided the patients into three different risk layers based on the nomogram prediction scores, and found that AT did not improve the prognosis of low- and moderate-risk patients, while high-risk patients benefited from AT. External validation data also support the above conclusions.

Conclusion

This study developed a nomogram that effectively and comprehensively evaluates the prognosis of T3N0 rectal cancer patients after TME. After using the nomogram, we recommend AT for high-risk patients, but not for low- and moderate-risk patients.

SUBMITTER: Zhang C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8654784 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Prognostic Nomogram for T3N0 Rectal Cancer After Total Mesorectal Excision to Help Select Patients for Adjuvant Therapy.

Zhang Chao C Zhao Shutao S Wang Xudong X

Frontiers in oncology 20211125

<h4>Background</h4>The recurrence rate of T3N0 rectal cancer after total mesorectal excision (TME) is relatively low, meaning that not all patients need adjuvant therapy (AT) (radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or chemoradiotherapy).<h4>Methods</h4>Patients diagnosed with pT3N0M0 rectal cancer after TME were analyzed using the SEER database, of which 4367 did not receive AT and 2794 received AT. Propensity score matching was used to balance the two groups in terms of confounding factors. Cox proportion ...[more]

PMID: 34900666

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLaparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) are popular mid and low rectal cancer trends. However, there is currently no systematic comparison between LaTME and TaTME of mid and low rectal cancer. Therefore, we systematically study the perioperative and pathological outcomes of LaTME and TaTME in mid and low rectal cancer.MethodsArticles included searching through the Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, and Web of science for articles on LaTME and TaTME. We calculated pooled standard mean difference (SMD), relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The protocol for this review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022380067).ResultsThere are 8761 participants included in 33 articles. Compared with TaTME, patients who underwent LaTME had no statistical difference in operation time (OP), estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative hospital stay, over complications, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, anastomotic stenosis, wound infection, circumferential resection margin, distal resection margin, major low anterior resection syndrom, lymph node yield, loop ileostomy, and diverting ileostomy. There are similarities between LaTME and TaTME for 2-year DFS rate, 2-year OS rate, distant metastasis rat, and local recurrence rate. However, patients who underwent LaTME had less anastomotic leak rates (RR 0.82; 95% CI: 0.70-0.97; I2 = 10.6%, P = .019) but TaTME had less end colostomy (RR 1.96; 95% CI: 1.19-3.23; I2 = 0%, P = .008).ConclusionThis study comprehensively and systematically evaluated the differences in safety and effectiveness between LaTME and TaTME in the treatment of mid and low rectal cancer through meta-analysis. Patients who underwent LaTME had less anastomotic leak rate but TaTME had less end colostomy. There is no difference in other aspects. Of course, in the future, more scientific and rigorous conclusions need to be drawn from multi-center RCT research.

Project description:Background Minimally invasive total mesorectal excision (MiTME) and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) are popular trends in mid and low rectal cancer. However, there is currently no systematic comparison between MiTME and TaTME of mid and low-rectal cancer. Therefore, we systematically study the perioperative and pathological outcomes of MiTME and TaTME in mid and low rectal cancer. Methods We have searched the Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, and Web of Science for articles on MiTME (robotic or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision) and TaTME (transanal total mesorectal excision). We calculated pooled standard mean difference (SMD), relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The protocol for this review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022374141). Results There are 11010 patients including 39 articles. Compared with TaTME, patients who underwent MiTME had no statistical difference in operation time (SMD -0.14; CI -0.31 to 0.33; I2=84.7%, P=0.116), estimated blood loss (SMD 0.05; CI -0.05 to 0.14; I2=48%, P=0.338), postoperative hospital stay (RR 0.08; CI -0.07 to 0.22; I2=0%, P=0.308), over complications (RR 0.98; CI 0.88 to 1.08; I2=25.4%, P=0.644), intraoperative complications (RR 0.94; CI 0.69 to 1.29; I2=31.1%, P=0.712), postoperative complications (RR 0.98; CI 0.87 to 1.11; I2=16.1%, P=0.789), anastomotic stenosis (RR 0.85; CI 0.73 to 0.98; I2=7.4%, P=0.564), wound infection (RR 1.08; CI 0.65 to 1.81; I2=1.9%, P=0.755), circumferential resection margin (RR 1.10; CI 0.91 to 1.34; I2=0%, P=0.322), distal resection margin (RR 1.49; CI 0.73 to 3.05; I2=0%, P=0.272), major low anterior resection syndrome (RR 0.93; CI 0.79 to 1.10; I2=0%, P=0.386), lymph node yield (SMD 0.06; CI -0.04 to 0.17; I2=39.6%, P=0.249), 2-year DFS rate (RR 0.99; CI 0.88 to 1.11; I2=0%, P = 0.816), 2-year OS rate (RR 1.00; CI 0.90 to 1.11; I2=0%, P = 0.969), distant metastasis rate (RR 0.47; CI 0.17 to 1.29; I2=0%, P = 0.143), and local recurrence rate (RR 1.49; CI 0.75 to 2.97; I2=0%, P = 0.250). However, patients who underwent MiTME had fewer anastomotic leak rates (SMD -0.38; CI -0.59 to -0.17; I2=19.0%, P<0.0001). Conclusion This study comprehensively and systematically evaluated the safety and efficacy of MiTME and TaTME in the treatment of mid to low-rectal cancer through meta-analysis. There is no difference between the two except for patients with MiTME who have a lower anastomotic leakage rate, which provides some evidence-based reference for clinical practice. Of course, in the future, more scientific and rigorous conclusions need to be drawn from multi-center RCT research. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022374141.

Project description:ImportanceProponents of novel transanal total mesorectal excision (TME) suggest the procedure overcomes the technical and oncologic challenges of conventional approaches for treating rectal cancer. Recently, however, there has been controversy regarding the oncologic safety of the procedure.ObjectiveTo assess the association of transanal TME with the incidence of local recurrence (LR) of cancer and the probability of remaining free of LR during follow-up.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter cohort study used data from 8 high-volume rectal cancer academic institutions from across Canada on all consecutive patients with primary rectal cancer treated by transanal TME at the participating centers. The study was conducted between January 2014 and December 2018, and data were analyzed from April 1, 2020, to September 15, 2020.ExposureTransanal TME.Main outcomes and measuresThe incidence of LR was reported as a direct measure of quality of resection. The cumulative probability of LR- and systemic recurrence (SR)-free survival at 36 months was estimated. Local recurrence and SR were defined as radiologic or endoscopic evidence of 1 or more new lesions in or outside the pelvis, respectively, documented during surveillance after the removal of the primary tumor.ResultsOf 608 total patients included in the analysis, 423 (69.6%) were male; the median age was 63 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-70 years). Local recurrence was identified in 22 patients (3.6%) after a median follow-up of 27 months (IQR, 18-38 months). The median time to LR was 13 months (IQR, 9-19 months). Sixteen of the 22 patients with LR (72.7%) were male, 14 (63.6%) received neoadjuvant chemoradiation, and 12 (54.5%) had American Joint Committee on Cancer stage III disease. Of those with LR, 16 (72.7%) had a negative circumferential radial margin and 20 (90.9%) had a negative distal resection margin, 2 (9.1%) experienced conversion to open surgery, and 15 (68.2%) also developed SR. The probability of LR-free survival at 36 months was 96% (95% CI, 94%-98%). According to the Cox proportional hazards regression model, the hazard ratio of LR was estimated to be 4.2 (95% CI, 2.9-6.2) times higher among patients with a positive circumferential radial margin than among those with a negative circumferential radial margin.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, transanal TME performed by experienced surgeons was associated with an incidence of LR and SR that is in line with the published literature on open and laparoscopic TME, suggesting that transanal TME may be an acceptable approach for management of rectal cancer.

Dataset Information

A Prognostic Nomogram for T3N0 Rectal Cancer After Total Mesorectal Excision to Help Select Patients for Adjuvant Therapy.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A Prognostic Nomogram for T3N0 Rectal Cancer After Total Mesorectal Excision to Help Select Patients for Adjuvant Therapy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets